The impact of a single surfing paddling cycle on fatigue and energy cost

Abstract

Surfing is one additional sport proposed by the Tokyo 2020 Organizing Committee. Surprisingly, substantial efforts to understand surfing energetics are recent, and the impact of a single surfing paddling cycle on fatigue and energy cost is still not clear. Since surfing paddling technique is highly specific, experiments in real practice conditions are necessary to provide deeper insights. Through a biophysical approach, biomechanical and energetics responses of surfing paddling were quantified and compared from 16 competitive male surfers (23.5 ± 10.0 years old, 65.3 ± 11.4 kg and 1.72 ± 0.01 m) during two sets (PRE and POST) of 10 s all-out tethered paddling plus 20 m sprint paddling, interposed by 6 min of endurance paddling. Faster surfers presented lower energy cost during sprint PRE (r² = 0.30, p = 0.03) and endurance (r² = 0.35, p = 0.02) relative surfing paddling velocities. Although the energy cost was higher for a lower velocity at maximal paddling velocity POST, the energy cost of surfing paddling increased with absolute velocity according to a power function (R² = 0.83). Our results suggest that fatigue seems to occur even following a single surfing paddling cycle. Developing a powerful and endurable metabolic base while reducing energy cost during surfing paddling should be seen as key factors in surfing training programs.

Figure 1

Conceptual model of a surf session energetic profile. Solid grey line indicates an energy-based approach that will be the focus of the current study.

Figure 2

Tethered-paddling force–time performance (A) and sprint paddling velocity (B) for PRE and POST endurance-paddling. *Non-ordinal force reduction (p < 0.01).

Figure 3

Estimated ${\dot{\text{V}}\text{O}}_2$ related parameters (mean ± SD and coefficient of variation) obtained during 6 min paddling at 60% of maximal velocity. A₀ is the ${\dot{\text{V}}\text{O}}_2$ before the endurance test; A_fc and A_{sc_end}, TD_fc and TD_sc are respectively amplitudes and corresponding time delays of the fast and slow ${\dot{\text{V}}\text{O}}_2$ components. The CV (%) and 95%CI are the mean coefficient of variation and 95% confidence interval for each mean parameter estimate, respectively.

Figure 4

[La⁻] kinetics during the entire protocol. *Difference from tethered-paddling PRE (p < 0.05); # Difference from maximal paddling velocity PRE (p < 0.05).

Figure 5

Energy cost at two different relative intensities, maximal paddling velocity (PRE and POST; A) and endurance paddling (B), and energy cost versus absolute velocity relationship (C) for all surfers.

Figure 6

Design of the study in which surfers were tested trough specific functional protocols of sprint (PRE and POST) and endurance paddling actions, thus simulating a surfing paddling cycle. [La⁻]: blood lactate sample assessment.

Figure 7

Tests on the swimming pool: (A) tethered paddling; (B) blood lactate assessment; (C) endurance paddling test with ${\dot{\text{V}}\text{O}}_2$ assessment and heart rate monitoring; (D) maximal paddling velocity test.